Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #697
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 24 2001           Volume 01 : Number 697

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:29:04 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Expiring domain names interim solution

 ICANN:
 Third Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration
 System Resources

 (23 August 2001) As previously reported in advisories dated 16 July 2001
 and 10 August 2001, the registry operator and registrars participating
 in the Shared Registration System (SRS) for .com/.net/.org have been
 working together to devise a plan to handle expiring names in a manner
 that is fair and does not interfere with other activities in the SRS.

 While all parties will continue to look for a long-term solution, the
 registry operator announced today that it has developed, and is
 preparing to implement, a short-term measure that will allow for the
 resumption of the batch delete process. This short-term measure will
 allow for the return of deleted names to the "pool" of names available
 for registration by any registrant, through any registrar, on a first-
 come/first-served basis. This will alleviate the growing backlog of
 names in delete-pending status and may provide additional data for
 use in developing appropriate long-term solutions.

 ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization has already been advised of
 the situation and has begun to discuss possible measures for handling
 expiring names. Members of the community are urged to participate in
 the DNSO's discussions, so that all viewpoints can be considered in
 developing measures for fair allocation of expiring names.

(http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr23aug01.htm contains
a long mail VeriSign GRS mail about the new system. There are
three pools -- Guarantee Pool, Overflow Pool, Automated Batch
Pool: Intensive automated batch processing is only allowed in the
third pool. There is an enforcement system with 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and additional offenses. All batch releases of domain names will
be performed daily at 18:00 UTC.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:08:04 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Expiring domain names interim solution

>There is an enforcement system with 1st, 2nd, 3rd
>and additional offenses.

As usual, a vague statement without any discussion of what the "enforcement
system" is or what the penalties are.  ICANN and Dan Halloran already have
an extensive history of doing nothing at all in response to complaints.

Russ Smith

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:04:55 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Are Real Names "Gonski"  ?

Patrick,

Checked. No truth that we can find to this at all. But thanks for thinking
about us!

Tim
XTNS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 5:23 AM
Subject: [ga] Are Real Names "Gonski" ?

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:05:23 -0700, Tim Langdell wrote:
> Subject: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System
>
> > XTNS is working in partnership with RealNames Corporation, whose
> technology
> > is already embedded worldwide in the Microsoft Internet Explorer
browser.
>
> The following comes from a usually reliable source:
>
> http://www.fuckedcompany.com/
>
> Rumor has it RealName.com's COO is about to resign, and Verisgn is gonna
buy
> the place for spare parts and pennies on the dollar.
> When: 8/22/2001
> Company: RealNames.com
> Severity: 85
> Points: 183
> 15 comments in the Happy Fun Slander Corner
>
> I'm sorry if it's true !!
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:15:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FYI: Expiring domain names interim solution

Thursday, Thursday, August 23, 2001, 6:08:04 PM, admin wrote:

>>There is an enforcement system with 1st, 2nd, 3rd
>>and additional offenses.

> As usual, a vague statement without any discussion of what the "enforcement
> system" is or what the penalties are.  ICANN and Dan Halloran already have
> an extensive history of doing nothing at all in response to complaints.

If you read the URL instead of the summary posted here before making
your judgement, you would have seen the enforcement system and the
penalties.

Come on Russ, you are better than this.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:18:52 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Expiring domain names interim solution

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:08:04PM -0400, admin wrote:
> >There is an enforcement system with 1st, 2nd, 3rd
> >and additional offenses.
> 
> As usual, a vague statement without any discussion of what the "enforcement
> system" is or what the penalties are.

As usual, you are wrong.  From the announcement
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr23aug01.htm):

  Enforcement

  The following enforcement procedures will be employed. 

  A 1st offense will result in the registrar having its bandwidth and
  sessions immediately limited in the Guarantee and Overflow Pools so
  that the behavior does not impact the system or other registrars.  The
  registrar will receive an email and telephone notification.  When the
  registrar has notified VeriSign GRS of the resolution of the issue
  (e.g., the activity has been moved to the Automated Batch Pool), these
  bandwidth and session limitations will be removed.  

  A 2nd offense will result in the same action as the 1st, with the
  added action that the registrar will be notified that subsequent
  offenses will result in it being blocked entirely from the Guarantee
  and Overflow Pools.  

  A 3rd offense will result in the registrar being blocked from the
  Guarantee and Overflow Pools for 7 days, requiring that all
  transactions be performed in the Automated Batch Pool.  

  Subsequent offenses will result in the registrar being blocked from
  the Guarantee and Overflow Pools for 30 days, requiring that all
  transactions be performed in the Automated Batch Pool. 

  Enforcement of these procedures will begin with the resumption of
  batch releases described below. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:22:26 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] FYI: Expiring domain names interim solution

>If you read the URL instead of the summary posted here before making
>your judgement, you would have seen the enforcement system and the
>penalties.

>Come on Russ, you are better than this.

OK, I saw it.  I guess I am starting to become cynical in my old age.

Russ Smith
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:28:36 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] Science.info/afilias update

It looks like the person who is claiming an "error" in the registration of
science.info manages a company called Corporate Domains AND is also an
Afilias official.  He is not only an Afilias official, he also seems to be
involved with correcting the errors and he has given talks to trademark
attorneys about registering during the sunrise period.

The Science.info "error" has not been fixed and the Afilias attorney Palage
has not responded to inquiries about when this "error" will be fixed or what
other domains were involved.

Russ Smith

==
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6807825.html

Reseller Corporate Domains mixed up a batch of trademark applications with
regular applications, Palage said, a fact later confirmed by Corporate
Domains Vice President John Kane.

The company erroneously sent approximately 50 applications to Afilias,
including DuPont's "science.info" application, that should have been
reserved for the regular "land rush" in September, Kane said.

==
http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_758841,00.html

"This is just to kick out registrants who don't have legitimate right. We're
not trying to give trademark holders the carte blanche to register any
domain name. We're just giving them the rights to register their exact
mark," explained John Kane, marketing task force leader at Afilias.

==

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2000/12/14domain.html

Like the 1889 land dash, Web designers are waiting for next year's signal so
they can register new domain names. And in the same fashion Oklahoma was
settled, people already are trying to register the electronic addresses
before the official date.

"It's going to be the wild, wild West," said John Kane, general manager of
Corporate Domains, Inc., a Greenville Web design company.

==

http://www.afilias.info/press-room/releases/INTA-Media-Alertv2.html

 Panel discussion: “ICANN & Trademark Protection in the New gTLDs”

                   John Kane - Afilias spokesperson

==
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39455,00.html

"First, there's going to be a sunrise period that will last 60 days in which
trademark holders can register domains," said John Kane, Afilias spokesman.

==
http://www.sedo.nl/links/showhtml.php3?Id=245&language=nl

Afilias spokesperson John Kane said ... that the company expects over
500,000 trademark and copyright holders to register dot-info addresses
during the sunrise period.

==
http://www.afilias.info/press-room/releases/afilias-media-alert-melbourne.ht
ml

“As we approach the launch of .info, we get closer to meeting the need for a
truly global domain name, one that will transcend cultural and geographic
boundaries by providing easy access to information for everyone,
everywhere -- the initial promise of the Internet,” said John L. Kane,
Afilias’ Marketing Task Force Leader. “Afilias is proud to participate in
the expansion of the domain name space, which represents a true milestone in
the evolution of the Internet.”

==

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/07623.html

"As a business, we'll have to compete with NSI on
whatever playing field is available, including their own,"
said John Kane, the general manager of Corporate
Domains, another CORE member."

==
http://www.attachemag.com/advert/special/ebiz_june.htm

“Today, we serve thousands of clients daily, providing a wide range of
corporate services, including corporation filings, formation of
limited-liability companies, registered agent services, corporate kits, Web
site development, and corporate compliance services, plus many other
small-business and corporate services,” says John L. Kane, the company’s
general manager. “We are prepared and committed to serving our
entrepreneurial-spirited clients quickly, professionally, and at the best
rates available from any service company in the business.”

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:30:27 -0600
From: "pheather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

I direct your attention to the conspicuously absent Peter de Blanc, and his 
post of Sunday the 19th which directed Joanna and other candidates as 
follows:

       ******************************************************

2. The candidates could seek travel funds from existing 
foundations that specialize in providing grants for this purpose. 
In fact some of these foundations are already providing travel 
grants to other persons involved in Internet process.

for example:
Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/mission/activities2000.shtml

Markle foundation: 
http://www.markle.org/gpi/_gpi_index.stm

The Benton Foundation:
http://www.benton.org/

And there are several others.

I fully expect any person seeking such assistance to organize 
their own financial support, and I am confident that the 
necessary sources of funds are out there. It is up to the 
candidate to identify the sources and to ask for the money. Or at 
least to recruit someone or some organization who supports that 
candidate's position and will do the fund-raising for them.

Peter de Blanc

   ***************************************************************

perhaps you might direct your comments to him rather than the innocent 
candidate

pheather

> Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?  
> 
> My understanding is that if one cannot afford to attend ICANN meetings
> or obtain one's own funding, then one should not request to qualify for
> a formal position within the DNSO process where attendance at ICANN
> meetings may be a requirement for the position.  If attendance is not a
> requirement, then why the need to appear or the need to request funding?
> 
> My having participated in the ICANN meetings, giving credit to DNSO GA
> Chairman Danny Younger, I know that Younger has funded his attendance
> and trips to ICANN meetings.  
> .............................

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:42:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grants, Funding, Moneys - Who is going to pay for all of this?

At 08:26 24/08/01, Derek Conant wrote:

>Who is going to pay for all of this and what is the reward in return?

As it is now, most volunteer participants in the DNSO processes will 
continue to pay for the privilege themselves, either with time or money. 
Some may manage to get some consultancy fees or  a travel subsidy from here 
and there.
The reward is to be part of a historic development in Internet history, 
perhaps even to be able to make a difference.

The punishment is to be occasionally subjected to vilification, innuendo 
and outright slander.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:32:42 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questinnaire pour les Membres de langue française

On 2001-08-23 22:45:55 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>3.2. connaissez-vous la liste france@large sous [email-masked]?
>3.3. des suggestions sont faites pour que cette liste soit considérée comme 
>partie française du DNSO.

I may, of course, easily have missed that suggesetion - but could 
you point out from whom it was, and where it was made, just for the
record?

Thank you.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:31:54 +0200
From: "eric Jonvel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel  - ICANN meeting in Montevideo

To all.

I'm Eric Jonvel, the 32y old french IT manager
running for the next election.

Even if give 2 hours a day for read your mail,
I should be the only one working
for a private company as I'm unable to have
the same opportunities than you for sending mail.

To resume my profil, I have to stand on the fact
I'm on the Internet since 1995 ( begin of it in France)
and studing DNS from the same date.
In the same time, one the other french candidate
seems yet looking for how manage a Name server.

In order to win time, It will be nice if you could
post your question to [email-masked] which is the
mail opened for this.

I'm also looking for sponsoring my travel to montevideo.
If one have a proposal, I'm ready .

Regards,
Eric Jonvel.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "ga ml" <[email-masked]>; "'Business
Constituency Secretariat'" <[email-masked]>; "Danny Younger"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

Dear All Concerned,

What this post really does is exemplify all of the problems with funding and
representation.

Derek as you well know we must make some concessions in order to obtain
funding.
Openness and transparency are what keep it right. If anyone around here
wears her
heart on her sleeve for all the world to see it is Joanna.  So if there
appears
some non-profit conflict, so be it, we can see how she acts not how it may
look.

I mention this not in passing, but in that, it cuts across all borders
socio-economic, cultural and multilingual, National and age.

Doesn't this argument also go to the UDRP and IP lawyer folks and the
digital
divide.

We have to get funded somewhere so we must accept that the only real
requirement
is transparency and public criticism of sources and the integrity of
individuals.
I like the recent post that reminded us that the press will be in Montevido.
I
only hope that these people have a thick of enough hide to handle the
onslaught of
criticism.

Eric

Derek Conant wrote:

> >  Good luck with the election.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Kristi Plähn-Gjersvold
> >Grants Manager, Benton Foundation
>
> It appeared that you solicited the Benton Foundation on behalf of the
> DNSO and ICANN for your Board candidacy.  Or, was your thinking that you
> were going to represent the Benton Foundation if they funded your trip
> to Montevideo?
>
> My understanding is that the Benton Foundation has not been following
> this process.  If your thinking was that your were going to represent
> your own views, why then expect the Benton Foundation to support you and
> fund you?
> Money, grants and funding are disappearing in today's troubled economy
> and the economy is probably going to get a whole lot worse before it
> begins to get better.
>
> I gather from your opposition to my posts concerning APOs and
> restructuring the DNSO
> (http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html), that you support
> counting everyone's votes and that you are against enterprise
> organizations representing stake holders, interested parties and the
> At-Large.
>
> Money is scarce.  Who is going to fund your point of view and expenses?
> How are you going to demonstrate that you have the funding, staff and
> necessary resources to adequately represent the GA constituency?  If you
> are elected, how can you properly represent your constituency without
> money for your time and expenses?  It takes money to properly compile
> and present information concerning a constituency's position.
>
> It takes money.  There is no money with your way of thinking.  Most
> organizations (non-profit, etc.) have experienced shrinking budgets for
> grants and funding and they have no money to spare.
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> On 12 May 2001 ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn made the following comment
> concerning ICANN funding DNSO expenses:
>
> "As I understand it, ICANN's budgets are not used for covering SO
> expenses.  This does not single out the DNSO or the GA, but applies
> across the all SO's. Perhaps your opinion is that this should change,
> and the budget should be adapted to accommodate certain kinds of SO
> expenses.  In which case, that is a matter to be pursued through
> process, ultimately requiring Board approval. We cannot make exceptions
> on an ad hoc basis and be fair to all constituencies."
>
> "If the acceptance of a volunteer position depended upon travel for
> which I have no sources of support, I would most certainly check in
> advance as to what is the relevant policy before agreeing to accept."
>
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> It may be the case that the state of the world's economy demands that
> standards and policy be derived from market driven forces.  It may be
> the case that it will be ICANN's responsibility to weigh and control
> standards and policy that are derived from market driven forces.
> Because of competition, market driven forces will advance the creation
> of new technology and efficient processes, protect consumer privacy and
> information, protect the integrity of the Domain Name System (DNS) and
> market driven forces will prevent the system from being captured.
>
> It takes money to properly compile and present information concerning
> competition and new technology.  An organization with money and
> resources that can properly compile and present information for their
> constituency should be allowed to compete for the ICANN Board's
> attention and votes.
>
> The matter of organizations being qualified to present information to
> the ICANN Board and being qualified to vote on ICANN agenda, concerning
> the integrity of the DNS and the development of standards and policy,
> should be at the very same level and priority as that used in assessing
> New TLD Registry Applications and Accredited Registrar Applications for
> the integrity of the DNS.
>
> We need to change our way of thinking because what we are doing now is
> not working.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
> Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
> E-mail:  [email-masked]
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> > > formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?
> >
> > I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have
I
> > solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.
> >
> > There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this
discussion
> > about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are
missing
> > the salient points.
> >
> > What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the
election
> > of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging
the
> > merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
> > participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the
requirement
> > to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
> > appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are
any NC
> > representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
> > they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
> > election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate
in a
> > physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any
position
> > as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
> > official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
> > election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be
regarded
> > as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
> > (whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in
this
> > election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
> > would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations
now
> > being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they
were
> > not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to change
the
> > rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
> > allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way,
there is
> > no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
> > procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected
stakeholders,
> > something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
> > supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst
others.
> > Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
> > adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
> > criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
> > integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
> > position that the election should not take place without giving
candidates
> > the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
> > attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
> > representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
> > means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this
election
> > by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies, has
been
> > introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
> > stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily
those
> > who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those
endorsers
> > would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
> > simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.
> >
> > The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past
any
> > reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
> > make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
> > committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
> > personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
> > willing to pay expenses.
> >
> > I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
> > think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
> > established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
> > regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have
given
> > the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of
other
> > pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and
have
> > to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
> > dollars, whether or not I can afford it.
> >
> > Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as
that
> > discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
> > support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a
contribution.
> > Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not
come
> > with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to
impose.
> >
> > Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
> > inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively. It
has
> > already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
> >
> > I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
> > unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
> > player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
> > minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand
miles
> > away, way out of sight......
> >
> > In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but
it
> > is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts at
this
> > particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
> > represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
> > default, this situation favors those candidates with business interests
that
> > are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at
a
> > time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
> > representation within this organization.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
> > ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
> > backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
> > process, and prevented real improvements being made.
> >
> > Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence
of
> > it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
> > standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate
statement,
> > this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to meet
your
> > own. History will be the judge of your vote.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> > Part I:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > Part II:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> > Reader, which is available for free down load at
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:01:07 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

Jefsey and all:

There's no such GA candidates nor NC candidates, etc.    There is simply
DNSO candidates!!!  If you begin to clasify candidates in such a way that you
and others are doing, you are simply trying that other's see this process as
vicious.   And it is not.

As far as I know all candidates was nominated by GA members anyway,  and none of
such nomineers was NC members.

No NC member is funded by ICANN funds neither DNSO funds to travel to ICANN
meetings.

And, it can happen that being an NC member or ICANN Board member, such member is
unable to attend certain ICANN meetings even if the funds are available from own
funds, company funds, other external sources.

I am an NC member, and it happened that for Stockholm meeting my organization
didn't have budget for pay for me to attend such meeting, I am unelegible to
receive funds from Salzburg Seminar because I received in the past two grants.
I searched other external funds, but I didn't find them.  And guess what? I
decided to pay from my own pocket the airticket and other expenses while
in Stockholm and a coleague from Honduras that went also to Stockholm for
ICANN meeting kindly offered me her room to stay because it has another bed.

Now imagine that the actual situation is for Stockholm meeting and not
Montevideo meeting, and I have a nomination I accepted for ICANN Board.   My
situation would be exactly the same.   No funds from DNSO, no funds from
constituency, no travel grants, no funds from ICANN, no funds from anywhere,
only my own pocket (and still I don't achieve to make lower my debt with my
credit card).

All people (including candidates for certain positions) has the same chance to
decide wether attend or not certain ICANN meetings.  If some of the candidates
has sponsors or decides to sponsor from their own pocket, or simply doesn't
finds any sponsor and decides not go, this is the bussiness of everyone and is
not related in any manner with actual positions they hold (NC members,
ICANN Board members, etc), because no money comes from ICANN, neither DNSO funds
to pay or sponsor candidacy activities.

I would like that, in the future, there will be an organization/foundation that
decides to have travel grants for DNSO candidates when needed or applicable.

And please, keep in mind...all candidates are DNSO candidates!!!

Best Regards
Vany

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Bravo Joana!
> Your English being better than mine I will not spoil it.
>
> I will only say:
> 1. I concurr 100% with every word you say
> 2. the point is not the candidate capaign but that GA candidates are
> excluded from possibilities and advatages granted to non-GA candidates
> however the larger support they get (see the endorsements).
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 01:25 23/08/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> > > formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?
> >
> >
> >I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have I
> >solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.
> >
> >There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this discussion
> >about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are missing
> >the salient points.
> >
> >What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the election
> >of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging the
> >merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
> >participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the requirement
> >to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
> >appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are any NC
> >representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
> >they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
> >election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> >It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate in a
> >physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any position
> >as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
> >official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
> >election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be regarded
> >as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
> >(whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in this
> >election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
> >would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations now
> >being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they were
> >not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to change the
> >rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
> >allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way, there is
> >no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
> >procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected stakeholders,
> >something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
> >supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst others.
> >Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
> >adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
> >criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
> >integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.
> >
> >Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
> >position that the election should not take place without giving candidates
> >the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
> >attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
> >representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
> >means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this election
> >by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies, has been
> >introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
> >stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily those
> >who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those endorsers
> >would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
> >simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.
> >
> >The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past any
> >reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
> >make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
> >committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
> >personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
> >willing to pay expenses.
> >
> >I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
> >think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
> >established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
> >regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have given
> >the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of other
> >pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and have
> >to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
> >dollars, whether or not I can afford it.
> >
> >Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as that
> >discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
> >support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a contribution.
> >Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not come
> >with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to impose.
> >
> >Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
> >inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively. It has
> >already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
> >
> >I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
> >unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
> >player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
> >minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand miles
> >away, way out of sight......
> >
> >In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but it
> >is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts at this
> >particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
> >represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
> >default, this situation favors those candidates with business interests that
> >are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at a
> >time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
> >representation within this organization.
> >
> >Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
> >ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
> >backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
> >process, and prevented real improvements being made.
> >
> >Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence of
> >it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
> >standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate statement,
> >this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to meet your
> >own. History will be the judge of your vote.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Joanna
> >
> >The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> >(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> >Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> >Part I:
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> >Part II:
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> >(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> >Reader, which is available for free down load at
> >http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #697
************************